PreMortem:When a member of congress, or state legislature, says something like this so profoundly ignorant, they should be escorted out of the Capitol and forbidden from holding public office ever again.

PreMortem:When a member of congress, or state legislature, says something like this so profoundly ignorant, they should be escorted out of the Capitol and forbidden from holding public office ever again.

In general, I like living in OKC, but our politicians keep getting dumber and more extreme. That's one of my biggest frustrations. That, and that people who I thought were intelligent keep electing these idiots.

GAT_00:PreMortem: When a member of congress, or state legislature, says something like this so profoundly ignorant, they should be escorted out of the Capitol and forbidden from holding public office ever again.

Instead, it guarantees them election by the GOP for life.

For today's high-flying conservatives, ignorance raises your profile above the rest. The more ignorant, the better. I'll bet this guy has Presidential ambitions.

I remember a few Farkers arguing at the time that just because SCOTUS upheld the individual mandate, didn't mean it was Constitutional. I'm always surprised when a politician is revealed to be as dumb as the dumbest posters on Fark. Even thought I disagree with many Conservative Farkers, they do appear smarter, on average, than the people they vote for.

To be (more than) fair, in a certain light he can be construed as correct. If you take "constitutional" and "unconstitutional" to be statements of fact instead of opinion, then he is correct to a certain extent. Both Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education cannot, simultaneously, be considered constitutional. This means that, if you believe that something is objectively constitutional or not, either the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson or Brown v. Board of Education declared that something was constitutional when in fact it was not. Now, if you define what is and is not constitutional as "whatever the controlling Supreme Court decision has stated" (you know, the way our government actually works) then the man is clearly an idiot.

Cyberluddite:"Who the fark are these assholes 'Marbury' and 'Madison' anyway? WTF makes them so special?"

See, I would be open to an intelligent discussion of whether Marbury v. Madison was correctly decided. SCOTUS deciding what is and isn't constitutional is not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, so whether the case was wrongly decided could be debated. But I'm guessing this guy does not know that, but rather is someone that says "Nuh uh! You can't do that!" when a SCOTUS decision comes down that he doesn't like.

Three Crooked Squirrels:Cyberluddite: "Who the fark are these assholes 'Marbury' and 'Madison' anyway? WTF makes them so special?"

See, I would be open to an intelligent discussion of whether Marbury v. Madison was correctly decided. SCOTUS deciding what is and isn't constitutional is not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, so whether the case was wrongly decided could be debated. But I'm guessing this guy does not know that, but rather is someone that says "Nuh uh! You can't do that!" when a SCOTUS decision comes down that he doesn't like.

Solkar:PreMortem: When a member of congress, or state legislature, says something like this so profoundly ignorant, they should be escorted out of the Capitol and forbidden from holding public office ever again.

In general, I like living in OKC, but our politicians keep getting dumber and more extreme. That's one of my biggest frustrations. That, and that people who I thought were intelligent keep electing these idiots.

Three Crooked Squirrels:Cyberluddite: "Who the fark are these assholes 'Marbury' and 'Madison' anyway? WTF makes them so special?"

See, I would be open to an intelligent discussion of whether Marbury v. Madison was correctly decided. SCOTUS deciding what is and isn't constitutional is not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, so whether the case was wrongly decided could be debated. But I'm guessing this guy does not know that, but rather is someone that says "Nuh uh! You can't do that!" when a SCOTUS decision comes down that he doesn't like.

Yeah, I thought maybe he was going for "judicial review technically isn't in the constitution." But nope.

Eh, this isn't that dumb. I think there's a valid point to be made that the Supreme Court doesn't get to decide whether or not one thinks a given law is constitutional or not. It just makes it the law; it doesnt change your personal view of the matter.

The idea that what is or isn't constitutional depends on the ideological makeup of the court is not incorrect. The problem is that he extends that idiocy later:

So what we have to do as a body of Congress is say, "look, just because the courts" - andI hear this all the time from Republicans - they say that the court is the arbitrator and after the arbitration is done, that's the rules we have to live under and we can go forth and make legislation given those rules. That's not the case. A perfect example if Obamacare. Obamacare is not constitutional, the individual mandate.

Yes, you do in fact have to go forth and make legislation given the parameters that the court has laid out, whether you agree with their decision or not. That is precisely how it works. "Welp, agree to disagree" does not override that particular bit of judicial oversight.

mrshowrules:I remember a few Farkers arguing at the time that just because SCOTUS upheld the individual mandate, didn't mean it was Constitutional. I'm always surprised when a politician is revealed to be as dumb as the dumbest posters on Fark. Even thought I disagree with many Conservative Farkers, they do appear smarter, on average, than the people they vote for.

There are plenty of rulings that I don't believe stand up to constitutional scrutiny. But the Supreme Court is the arbiter of that. Someone has to be. If we don't like a ruling, than the Congress needs top modify the relevant laws to pass constitutional muster, the ruling needs to be overturned by a future Court, or a constitutional amendment has to be passed.

Of course, this whole thing is particularly funny since Antonin Scalia recently essentially said that Congress doesn't have the power to legislate.

DamnYankees:Eh, this isn't that dumb. I think there's a valid point to be made that the Supreme Court doesn't get to decide whether or not one thinks a given law is constitutional or not. It just makes it the law; it doesnt change your personal view of the matter.

Seriously? "Area man passionate defender of what he thinks the constitution says" is satire"

DamnYankees:Eh, this isn't that dumb. I think there's a valid point to be made that the Supreme Court doesn't get to decide whether or not one thinks a given law is constitutional or not. It just makes it the law; it doesnt change your personal view of the matter.

Actually, a lot of Tea Party people I know subscribe to the belief that the Supreme Court can't decide on the constitutionality of laws because the Constitution never explicitly gave the Supreme Court that power.

I'm willing to bet you that this interpretation is what Bridenstine meant and not your interpretation.

nmrsnr:To be (more than) fair, in a certain light he can be construed as correct. If you take "constitutional" and "unconstitutional" to be statements of fact instead of opinion, then he is correct to a certain extent. Both Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education cannot, simultaneously, be considered constitutional. This means that, if you believe that something is objectively constitutional or not, either the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson or Brown v. Board of Education declared that something was constitutional when in fact it was not. Now, if you define what is and is not constitutional as "whatever the controlling Supreme Court decision has stated" (you know, the way our government actually works) then the man is clearly an idiot.

Brown v. Board explicitly overturned the decision in Plessy, and therefore Plessy was specifically declared to be UNconstitutional. Obviously this subtlety is lost on many, as you point out. However, in a strictly legal sense, Plessy IS constitutional in both the subjective sense (the Supreme Court said so) and the objective sense: It's entirely possible to deconstruct the argument and see why the case law allowed the Court in Plessy to reach the decision it did. That is one of the perils of law: That it is entirely possible to look at it from one angle and make it come out one way, and from another angle and have it come out completely differently. Just like Citizens United, the case everyone thinks "should have" been so obviously decided the other way. Well, it was actually decided on quite logical 1st Amendment grounds that had nothing (imo) to do with the issue of corporate contributions but had everything to do with how the Court ruled.

But on a more practical level, it's exactly why the Court must be the final arbiter of what is Constitutional and what is not. Who else is there? Everyone thinks they know what the Constitution says and means, but vanishingly few really do, and fewer still understand the complicated caselaw behind it. Everyone may not always agree with the Supreme Court's rulings, but the discussion has to stop SOMEWHERE, someone has to draw a line and say "This is okay and this is not" and who else is there? You want Congress to decide? We'd never have any decisions made at all! Lower courts can't do it, there has to be some final board someplace to make an ultimate ruling. If the Court lately has gotten too political, then the Court needs overhauled; but the idea of a Supreme Court isn't a bad idea. Just the idiots ON the Court.

Peki:/threadjackonWTF are Spongebob and whoever the heck that is doing?? I get it's butthurt, but what are they holding?? (I hope it's obvious at this point that I'm not a Spongebob fan)/threadjackoff

Mr Krabbs said he'd take their butts if they got paint on his stuff.. and they did.. so they're crying for their soon to be gone butts.it was water based paint the whole time LOLZ... I am a sad little man

Peki:At least this answers some of what's wrong with the GOP; the only legitimate law-law is the one that they agree with.

C. Judges make their entire reputation on their interpretation of law as it appears on the books and how it can be applied. These people were all former lawyers that based their ENTIRE living on a solid reputation. They do not fark around with that rep.

These judges truly believe what they deliver in their decisions. They are required, by law, to explain their decisions to the public so we can be informed as to the "why" of the decision. No other branch of government is required to do so. Judges are regularly called "activist judges" simply because they refuse to disregard constitutional law. There are actual "activist judges" out there because we are all human and judges are included in that.

RexTalionis:DamnYankees: Eh, this isn't that dumb. I think there's a valid point to be made that the Supreme Court doesn't get to decide whether or not one thinks a given law is constitutional or not. It just makes it the law; it doesnt change your personal view of the matter.

Actually, a lot of Tea Party people I know subscribe to the belief that the Supreme Court can't decide on the constitutionality of laws because the Constitution never explicitly gave the Supreme Court that power.

I'm willing to bet you that this interpretation is what Bridenstine meant and not your interpretation.

The Constitution never said a lot of things. It doesn't, for instance, allow us to have either an Air Force or a Coast Guard.

what_now:DamnYankees: Eh, this isn't that dumb. I think there's a valid point to be made that the Supreme Court doesn't get to decide whether or not one thinks a given law is constitutional or not. It just makes it the law; it doesnt change your personal view of the matter.

Seriously? "Area man passionate defender of what he thinks the constitution says" is satire"

While that's not a mainstream position, its not insane. The Constitution does not, in fact, give the court the power to do that.

nmrsnr:To be (more than) fair, in a certain light he can be construed as correct. If you take "constitutional" and "unconstitutional" to be statements of fact instead of opinion, then he is correct to a certain extent. Both Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education cannot, simultaneously, be considered constitutional. This means that, if you believe that something is objectively constitutional or not, either the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson or Brown v. Board of Education declared that something was constitutional when in fact it was not. Now, if you define what is and is not constitutional as "whatever the controlling Supreme Court decision has stated" (you know, the way our government actually works) then the man is clearly an idiot.

Yes, but I think this might be a bit like when Biden said he didn't remember "the website number," then remembered (or perhaps was told by someone off-camera) and said it was recovery.gov.

RexTalionis:DamnYankees: Eh, this isn't that dumb. I think there's a valid point to be made that the Supreme Court doesn't get to decide whether or not one thinks a given law is constitutional or not. It just makes it the law; it doesnt change your personal view of the matter.

Actually, a lot of Tea Party people I know subscribe to the belief that the Supreme Court can't decide on the constitutionality of laws because the Constitution never explicitly gave the Supreme Court that power.

I'm willing to bet you that this interpretation is what Bridenstine meant and not your interpretation.

While that's not a mainstream position, its not insane. The Constitution does not, in fact, give the court the power to do that.

Frank N Stein:Cool. I'm going to cite this article next time someone complains that just because the SC ruled in Hellers favor doesn't mean it's constitutional.

Is DC flouting the ruling on the basis of well, that's just like, your opinion, man, or are they disagreeing with the conclusions reached therein but falling the guidance of the court as to the constitutionality of the ruling? Because what this moron is doing is a whole different ballgame from believing that the decision should have gone the other way.

Gyrfalcon:The Constitution never said a lot of things. It doesn't, for instance, allow us to have either an Air Force or a Coast Guard.

What to do, what to do...

I'm sure Scalia and the conservative justices will strike down both in a heartbeat.

Constitutional Originalism* and all.

*note does not apply to the powers of the military, the limits of the powers of republican presidents, the limits of government intrusion into personal lives (especially if it involves hot penis on penis action) or the actual constitution itself

DamnYankees:what_now: DamnYankees: Eh, this isn't that dumb. I think there's a valid point to be made that the Supreme Court doesn't get to decide whether or not one thinks a given law is constitutional or not. It just makes it the law; it doesnt change your personal view of the matter.

Seriously? "Area man passionate defender of what he thinks the constitution says" is satire"

While that's not a mainstream position, its not insane. The Constitution does not, in fact, give the court the power to do that.

The power to what... magically change someone's personal opinion of something? Well, duh.